(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(b) Fraud;

(c) Forgery of private documents;

(d) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.(b)(D)

5.2.2. E

Attorney Lee Jae-woo

Attorney Park In-bok (for defendant B)

Attorney Lee Dong-jin (the national election for the defendant C)

Law Firm Song-tae (Defendant D)

Attorney Kim Jong-tae

Attorney Kim Yong-nam (Defendant E)

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for nine months for the crimes of Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7-A. of the judgment of the Defendant, and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for the crimes of No. 7-b. e. and No. 8 of the judgment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the frauds against F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N, the frauds against 0 August 3, 2009, and the frauds against P on April 19, 2010 and October 8, 2012, each of the facts charged in the instant case is acquitted. < Amended by Act No. 10352, Oct. 3, 2009>

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be publicly announced.

[Defendant B]

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

[Defendant C]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

[Defendant D]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

[Defendant E]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

【Criminal Power】

On May 14, 2010, Defendant A was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of four years and six months in Seoul High Court due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010. On October 10, 2014, the Seoul High Court sentenced the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in Seoul High Court for six months and six years in imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2015, after being sentenced to two years and two years in imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on December 10, 2015.

Defendant C was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on September 27, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2012. On December 21, 2012, Defendant C was sentenced to three months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on December 21, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2012, and on December 19, 2014, Defendant C was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a crime of false accusation at the Central District Court on March 5, 2015.

On September 2, 2014, Defendant D was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment of six months for fraud at the District Court of the Republic of Korea on September 2, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

[2016Gohap1270: Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E]

1. The Defendants’ status and public offering relation

From April 13, 2009 to July 20, 2010, Defendant A, who was a joint representative director of Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Q Q") and owned Q with 998 households in Yangju-si (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") and ordered U to sell the above leased apartment instead of receiving KRW 1 billion of performance guarantee money from S Bank and T, in order to raise repayment or company operation funds, etc., Defendant A acquired Q from Q, which owned 98 households in Yangju-si (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case"). Defendant A delegated U to sell the apartment of this case by proxy the above leased apartment. However, Defendant C, etc., who operated V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gu W"; hereinafter referred to as "V"), concluded a double sales agency contract for the apartment of this case, and had Defendant C, etc. receive money under the name of sale price and received part of this money from others.

Defendant C, as a co-operator of V, was aware of the fact that there was a sales agency contract between V and Q at the time of signing that there was a sales agency contract between V and Q, Defendant C was unable to sell the apartment of this case at the time of signing the contract, but was well aware from Defendant A, Defendant C paid part of the sales price to Defendant A, and had the rest of the remainder to be arbitrarily used with Defendant D, etc.

Although Defendant D had been aware that the general sale procedure was not in progress as stated in Q, such as having entered into a sales contract for the apartment of Q and the instant apartment, Defendant D had been aware of the fact that the sales contract was not in progress from the seller of the apartment of Q, Defendant D had been paid the commission when entering into the sales contract from V, and had the intention to acquire money under the pretext of arranging the conclusion of the construction contract, such as the interior of the instant apartment, at the same time as the island.

Defendant E, with the knowledge that the sales agency contract, etc. for the apartment of this case was entered into in the apartment of this case, received a general sale of two households among the apartment of this case, but was aware that the general sale procedure did not proceed as stated in Q, such as Defendant C and Defendant D, by failing to comply with the contents of the agreement such as the transfer of the registration. However, Defendant E, upon entering into the sales contract, intended to receive the commission when entering into the sales contract from V, and acquired the money under the pretext of arranging the conclusion of the construction contract, such as the interior of the interior of the apartment of this case at the same time.

2. At around August 21, 2009, Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E’s joint criminal conduct (the fraud against Victim X) around the fiveth floor of the old Y building, Defendant E stated that “R apartment is leased apartment, but it is possible to move in upon completion of remodeling,” and then, Defendant D introduced the victim to Defendant D, “The victim has made a sales contract on the upper floor and affixed a seal on the upper floor.” The market price is KRW 190 million if the sale notice is issued, the apartment price should be obtained through other procedures. At the latest, Defendant E can be sold to the illegal household by entering into the law and can be sold to the general public when the sale notice is made on September 2009.

However, Defendant A acquired Q and became an attorney-at-law and a joint representative director of Q in relation to borrowing KRW 10 billion from the Z (hereinafter “SS bank”), and Defendant A’s shares were all trusted to the S Bank and could not independently delegate the sale of the instant leased apartment without the consent of AA lawyer. The apartment of this case was anticipated to refuse to file a lawsuit against the existing lessee and refuse to sell the leased apartment of this case, and the general approval of the competent authorities was not included in the case. In light of the financial situation of Q or Defendant A, it was impossible to refund the rent deposit to the existing lessee, and it was impossible to sell the apartment in general due to the difficulty in returning the rent deposit to the existing lessee. Defendant A and the remaining Defendants as well as the other Defendants were aware of or sufficiently confirmed.

In light of such circumstances, although the Defendants could sufficiently see the circumstances that the sale of the apartment of this case would not be properly carried out, the Defendants deceiving the victim as above, and let the victim receive KRW 76 million in total from September 22, 2009 to the AD bank account under the name of V as the down payment for the purchase price for the apartment of this case and AC, and acquired KRW 20 million in total from September 22, 2009 to the same account under the remaining terms as the remainder. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21747, Aug. 21, 2009>

3. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defendant D

A. On August 20, 2009, at the V office located in the Y Building 5th floor in Gui-si, Si, Gui-si, YA around August 2009, Defendant D made a false statement to the effect that “R apartment will be sold first to the victim after the lapse of five years as a rental apartment, and that it will be sold promptly. It would leave the illegal residential household and sell it promptly. It would be sold immediately. It would be sold immediately if it is deposited at the down payment of KRW 35 million per household and the remainder, then the registration will be transferred immediately.”

However, as referred to in paragraph (2) above, the general sale of the apartment of this case was impossible in reality, and the defendants knew of such circumstances that they would not properly sell the apartment of this case, and even if they could have been sufficiently able to do so, they deceiving the victim as above, and they acquired KRW 170 million in total by inducing the victim to transfer the amount of KRW 150 million to the AD bank account under the name of the representative director of the defendant A, as the purchase price for five households, such as the apartment of this case, AF, AGho, AHho, and AIho. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21650, Aug. 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21650, Aug. 24, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21650, Aug. 24, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21700, Sep. 21, 2009>

B. On August 20, 2009, at the V office located in the Y building 5th floor of Guri-si, Guri-si, Y building around August 2009, Defendant D introduced the Victim AK through F, etc., and the victim stated that “The apartment registration of the person who purchased the victim through V is made. The two mains of the viewing is that the registration will be completed by September 10, 2009.”

However, as mentioned in paragraph (2) above, the general sale of the apartment of this case was in a situation where it was impossible, and the defendants knew of such circumstances that they would not properly sell the apartment of this case, and even if they could have been sufficiently able to do so, they deceiving the victim as above and then let the victim receive KRW 38 million in total from the account under the AJ name where the defendant A is the representative director. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21690, Aug. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21690, Aug. 25, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21650, Aug. 25, 2009>

C. On August 20, 2009, at the V office located in the Y building 5th floor of Guri-si, Guri-si, YM around August 2009, Defendant D introduced the victim AM through F, etc., and then the victim stated that “The apartment registration of the person who purchased the victim through V will be completed. The registration will be completed immediately because the two main viewers would make a package registration.”

However, as mentioned in paragraph (2) above, the general sale of the apartment of this case was in a situation where it was impossible, and the defendants knew of such circumstances that they would not properly sell the apartment of this case, and even if they could have been sufficiently able to do so, they deceiving the victim as above and then let the victim remit the amount of KRW 9.5 million on August 20, 2009 and August 21, 2009 to the account under the AJ name of the representative director of the defendant AJ where the defendant A is the representative director, and acquired KRW 38 million on August 25, 2009 by remitting the amount of KRW 28 million to the AD bank account under the name of V.

D. At the V office located in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul AO and the third floor around 2009, around 10, 21, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim N, the defendant D, after hearing the horses of the AP, sold the "R apartment as a leased apartment after the lapse of five years, and then sold it to the general public. The illegally residing household will be removed and sold promptly.

A false statement was made to the effect that if only KRW 40 million is deposited with the down payment and the remainder, the key to the apartment shall be given at the same time as the remainder payment, and the registration shall be transferred one week after leaving the lease deposit per household.

However, some of the apartment units of this case could not be sold to the general public for the first time, and some of the apartment units had already been sold to the general public or had been disposed of a provisional disposition, and it was impossible to sell the apartment units of this case to the general public as provided in paragraph 2 of this case.

In light of such circumstances, although the Defendants could sufficiently see the circumstances that the sale of the apartment of this case would not be properly conducted, the Defendants deceiving the victim as above and prepared an agreement with the victim, and let the victim pay 160 million won of cashier's checks of this case to Defendant D on October 21, 2009 under the name of 30 households, such as A. Q., etc., of the apartment of this case. On October 22, 2009, the Defendants, on October 29, 22, 2009, remitted KRW 160 million to the A.D bank account under the name of V; KRW 50 million on October 29, 2009; KRW 190 million on October 31, 2009; KRW 160 million on the same account as the same account; and KRW 160 million on November 1, 200, KRW 160,0000 on the same account.

E. From around October 21, 2009, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim AR in V offices located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, AO, and the third floor, Defendant D heard the horses of AP to the victim AR who found the victim AR, “R apartment was sold first as a leased apartment after the lapse of five years, and then sold it to the general public. The illegally residing household will be removed and sold promptly.

A false statement was made to the effect that if only KRW 40 million is deposited with the down payment and the remainder, the key to the apartment shall be given at the same time as the remainder payment, and the registration shall be transferred one week after leaving the lease deposit per household.

However, some of the apartment units of this case could not be sold to the general public for the first time, and some of the apartment units had already been sold to the general public or had been disposed of a provisional disposition, and it was impossible to sell the apartment units of this case to the general public as provided in paragraph 2 of this case.

In light of such circumstances, although the Defendants could sufficiently see the fact that the sale of the leased apartment would not be properly conducted, they deceiving the victim as above and prepared an agreement with the victim, and let the victim do so on October 24, 2009 to the AD bank account under the name of yy, with the amount of KRW 50 million in total of KRW 1.5 million in the same account on November 9, 2009, KRW 200,000,000 in the same account under the name of 25 households, and KRW 1.5 million in the same account on November 28, 2009, KRW 2,000,000 in the same amount of KRW 2,50,000 in the name of GaT, KRW 2,000 in the same account on November 4, 2009, KRW 1,000 in the same amount of KRW 2,00,000 in the same account on November 13, 2009.

F. On October 2009, the fraud against the victim AV was made in the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu AO and the third floor, and the defendant D caused the victim AV found through AW to be changed from the leased apartment to the general public. The price is KRW 130 million, and the remainder may be removed from the leased apartment. The registration is made by the end of December 2009. The purport is that the registration is made by the end of December. 2009.

However, as stated in paragraph (2) above, although the general sale of the apartment of this case was in a situation that is practically impossible, and the defendants could have sufficiently known such circumstances that they would not properly sell the apartment of this case, they deceiving the victim as above, and then, they acquired the victim a total of KRW 40 million by deceiving the victim to AD bank account in the name of V as the sale price for the apartment of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21790, Oct. 28, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21704, Nov. 12, 2009>

4. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant C (Fraud against Victim AY);

Around October 8, 2009, at the V office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu A0 and the third floor, the Defendants made the victim AY (former AZ prior to the opening of the name) found by the introduction of AW et al. D through D to the effect that “R apartment was covered by the lease to the general public.” It would obtain a large amount of gains from the sale of BA and B at KRW 10 million in each of the subparagraphs BA and B B. The end of December 2009.”

However, as in paragraph (2) above, although the Defendants knew that the general sale of the apartment of this case was impossible in reality, and even though they knew that they would not properly sell the apartment of this case, they deceiving the victim and caused the victim to do so on October 8, 2009 to the AD bank account in the name of V, and to the same account as of October 28, 2009, with the same account as of October 28, 2009, and with a total of KRW 110 million,00,000,000 from November 9, 2009 to the same account.

5. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E

Although the Defendants knew that the general sale of the apartment of this case was impossible as in the above paragraph (2) and they would not properly sell the apartment of this case, they concluded a construction contract with the victims on the premise that the general sale of the apartment of this case is made, they conspired to acquire money under the name of the construction deposit after concluding the construction contract with the victims.

(a) Fraud against victim F;

In June 209, Defendant E concluded a business contract with the victim for 150 households of the instant apartment and transferred KRW 5 million to the BB bank account in the name of Defendant E, the wife of Defendant E on June 24, 2009, KRW 10 million to BB bank account in the name of BC, and KRW 5 million to BB bank account in the name of BE bank account in the name of BE bank account in June 30, 2009, KRW 10 million to BE bank account in the name of BE bank account in the name of BE bank, and KRW 5 million to B bank account in the name of BE bank in the name of BE bank in the name of B, and KRW 5 million to B bank account in the name of BE bank in July 1, 2009. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 200548, Jul. 25, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21500, Jun. 24, 2009>

Defendant D continued to recommend the victim, as above, to be forced to take over the remaining 150 households of 150 households of the rest of Defendant E, and Defendant E prepared a written withdrawal of the waiver of construction to the victim, and the victim transferred KRW 5 million to the BD bank account under the name of BC on July 24, 2009, and KRW 45 million to V AD bank account on August 7, 2009.

In other words, Defendant D entered into a contract with the victim for construction work in the name of the victim and V on August 31, 2009 on the premise of the construction deposit, and Defendant D, on September 1, 2009, issued a cashier's checks of KRW 50 million to the victim and KRW 20 million to the BF on September 1, 2009.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to obtain a total of KRW 165 million from the victim.

B. On August 2009, the victim's fraud against the victim was introduced to the defendant D, and the defendant Eul, etc. introduced the victim 0 to the defendant 5th floor of the Y building in the Seocho-si Y building, and the defendant D made a false statement to the effect that "the lessee has a R apartment, a rental apartment in the BG district in Yangju-si, and the lessee has completed the first sale to the lessee five years after the lapse of the five years, and the remainder of the household after the second month of the sale to the general public. When the sale to the general public begins, the purchase price will be acquired from the buyer at the time of the purchase to the buyer. The purchase price will be paid to the buyer."

The Defendants, as stated in paragraph (2) above, could sufficiently show the circumstances that the construction would not have been a sexual intercourse, such as the general sale of the leased apartment in this case and the test of the Plaintiff, but the Defendants deceiving the victim as above, and concluded a contract with the victim for the interior work, and then let the victim obtain KRW 65 million in total by allowing the Defendant D to deliver the cashier’s checks on August 12, 2009, KRW 30 million, and KRW 25 million in cash checks on August 14, 2009, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 9504, Aug. 14, 2009; Act No. 9504, Aug. 14, 2009>

6. On July 2009, Defendant C and Defendant D’s joint criminal conduct (victim G and H fraud) stated that “The remaining volume except for the first and second units sale of the apartment of this case, among the apartment of this case, shall be the general sale, and if so, the interior work may be directly conducted.” The apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s Y

However, as in paragraph (2) above, the general sale of the rental apartment of this case was in a situation that is practically impossible, and A could not independently contract the construction of the apartment of this case, such as interior, etc.

In light of these circumstances, although the Defendants could sufficiently see the circumstances that the construction would not have sexual intercourse, such as the sale of the apartment of this case and the test of the apartment of this case, the Defendants deceiving the victims as above, and caused the victims G to transfer KRW 40 million to the AU association account in the name of Defendant D’s father and the AU association account in the name of 150 households of the apartment of this case on July 31, 2009, under the name of the deposit money for the construction of the 704 households of the apartment of this case. The Defendants, on August 13, 2009, transferred KRW 25 million to the AB bank account in the name of the deposit money for the construction of the 704 households of the apartment of this case. On August 13, 2009, the Defendants got Defendant D to deliver KRW 25 million cashier’s checks to each of Defendant H on August 13, 2009.

[2017Gohap14: Defendant A]

7. The defendant A's fraud against the victim P

Although the victim P paid money to Q as the sale price of the apartment of this case, the Defendant failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer for the apartment of this case, and thus demanded the return of the sale price from the victim, the Defendant provided the money to the Seoul Gangnam-gu Construction Site, Seoul, which is the Defendant’s business place, and instead induced the victim as if he would be able to receive reimbursement for the sale price.

A. On July 8, 2010, the Defendant, through BI, a relative of the victim, received KRW 28,200,000 from the victim to the effect that “the Defendant shall appoint an attorney-at-law as a private matter. It is necessary to first lend KRW 30,000,000 to the victim.” It is false to the effect that only 30,000,000 won shall be paid for three months. If the Defendant fails to pay the said money, he/she will transfer ownership to the general public without any condition under the instant apartment BJ-ho and BK.” The Defendant received KRW 28,20,000,000 from the victim, after deducting the interest of the Defendant from the victim. On July 13, 2010, the Defendant again received KRW 282,000 from the victim on July 13, 2010.”

B. On January 27, 2011, the Defendant, through BI, obtained cash KRW 17 million from the victim and acquired it through BI to the effect that “the amount of KRW 17 million shall be paid to the victim if only the amount of KRW 17 million is paid to the victim.” On the other hand, as well as KRW 17 million, and the principal and interest of KRW 60 million shall be fully paid to the apartment sale price and KRW 60 million prior to the purchase price.”

C. From the end of March, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim on April 1, 201, and acquired KRW 200 million in total from the victim after receiving a deposit slip of KRW 100 million on April 14, 201, from the victim, on the end of the Gangnam-gu Seoul, in order to the effect that “BO implementation project is reasonable due to the influence of the BP apartment reconstruction. The last force should be set aside, and only three months will be used if it is leased KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.”

D. Around May 9, 2011, the Defendant, at a restaurant near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government General Organization, is undergoing the process of processing the public auction on the site of “BH apartment site” to the victim and BI, but it seems that it will continue to be inspected. The same may be awarded a successful bid of KRW 10 billion within one month. The same shall apply to BR, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the trustee in bankruptcy, the trustee in bankruptcy, and the person in Q who is the creditor, each of KRW 50 million.

When lending KRW 150,000,000 in cash, it is false to the effect that "If you lend 10,000,000 won in cash, we will solve all the amount of cash until now." On May 12, 2011, I received KRW 150,000,000 in cash from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

E. On January 3, 2013, the Defendant may concentrate on the public auction at the office at the Gangnam-gu Seoul District Office at the Gangnam-gu Seoul District Office at the construction site where all the present criminal cases are to be handled. The Defendant, who is a judge in charge of the criminal case, obtained the Defendant’s false statement to the effect that “The Defendant shall supply KRW 20 million to the judge of BT who is a judge in charge of the criminal case, as the Gu affairs value of the Gu affairs, and that 6 million won shall be given to BU attorney, and that expenses shall also be provided. Lastly, if he/she lends more money once, he/she shall receive a public auction at the construction site at a time,” he/she shall receive from the victim a total of KRW 6 million on January 31, 2013, KRW 20 million on February 8, 2013, KRW 29 million on February 15, 2013, and shall receive KRW 29 million from the victim.

[2017Gohap15: Defendant A]

8. Forgery of each private document by Defendant A and the uttering of a falsified private document;

A. On April 13, 2011, the Defendant: (a) written the title “A4” without authority for the purpose of exercising the right at an irregular place; and (b) written the title “I, without authority, write the certificate of the right to registration of a house owned by the principal, which was entrusted as a security deposit, as it is necessary for a locking with respect to the lease contract from April 15, 201 to April 25, 201; and (c) written “I, on April 15, 2011,” and affixed a seal imprint, which was held in advance following the name of K, with the seal imprint affixed thereto.

As a result, the Defendant forged one copy of the “written evidence of registration rights” in the name of K, which is a private document concerning rights and duties and certification of facts, and issued one copy of the “written evidence of registration rights” to BV as if it was a document that was duly formed to BV without knowledge of the fact at a non-place.

B. In borrowing KRW 100 million from BV, the Defendant, despite having been aware of the fact that the Defendant obtained from K only a debt guarantee of KRW 100 million from K and arranged BW to arrange the above loan, when BV demanded the Defendant to set up a loan certificate and collateral security for KRW 390 million by aggregating the Defendant’s existing debt to the Defendant, the Defendant, along with BW, had been able to arbitrarily prepare documents related thereto.

On June 13, 2011, the defendant, in collusion with BW, stated that "BY office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government," "BY" as "the details of repayment and loan certificate" in A4 form without authority, "the maximum amount of bonds shall be three hundred million won, "the amount of repayment shall be thirty million won," "the amount of repayment shall be thirty million won," "the 150 million won out of the upper fund shall be executed on June 22, 2011, and "the debtor shall pay KRW 10 million,000,000,000 won," "the debtor shall be notified on June 13, 201," and "the debtor shall be stated as "BY office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and shall be stated as "the debtor shall be entitled to the 10,000,000 won," and "the debtor shall be entitled to the 10,000,000 won, in the name of the debtor."

As a result, the defendant forged one copy of ‘the details of repayment' and ‘the certificate of borrowing' in the name of K, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations and certification of facts, and ‘the contract to establish a collateral security', and exercised it by delivering the above documents as if they were actually formed to BV at the same place on the same day.

[2017Gohap182: Defendant C]

9. Fraud against Defendant C CB

The Defendant, who actually operates V, did not acquire the right to sell the apartment of this case by means of Q, concluded a sales contract for the apartment of this case, and had D et al. recruit money to buy the apartment of this case without acquiring the right to sell the apartment of this case by way of fact.

Since then, D, at the office of Kuri-si, Y building, and V on August 18, 2009, at the five floors, D, with the introduction of the real estate brokerCC, can purchase an apartment immediately if it is paid only KRW 45 million. The intermediate payment of KRW 45 million may be transferred and the remainder of KRW 45 million may be extended. It was concluded with the victim to sell the apartment CD as the down payment, and it was transferred from the victim to the bank account (AD bank, CE) in the name of V under the name of V on August 18, 2009.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[2016Gohap1270]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The statements of witnesses F, G, andN in the first trial record;

1. Each statement of witness H, Y, and BF in the second trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness AM in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each statement of the witness CF and CG in the fourth trial records;

1. The statement of a witness CH and AR in the fifth trial records;

1. Statement of each of the witness X, CI and CJ in the sixth trial records;

1. The legal statement of the witness A (as to the defendant C, D, and E);

1. The legal statement of the witness C (as to the defendant A, D, and E);

1. The witness D's legal statement (as to the defendant A, C, and E);

1. The legal statement of the witness E (as to the defendant A, C, and D);

1. Each legal statement of witness B and CG;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused D, E, and C;

1. Examination protocol of the suspect against Defendant A by the prosecution (including statement of the CG's general examination);

1. Examination protocol of the suspect of Defendant A, C, and B by the prosecution (including the statement of the CG's general examination);

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning B;

1. Copy of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution concerning CI;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning AR, N, G, H, X, F, CK, AM, and AK;

1. Each police protocol of statement of the CL, AV, AY, F, G, H, CM, CF, CG, CH, and CH;

1. Written statements, AR, and AK, and recording records of conversations D and AK;

1. Investigation report, investigation report (verification of cashier's checks, etc.), investigation report (verification of related damage amount, such as F who files a complaint), investigation report (verification of the current status of withdrawal from the V corporate account to the Hong Kong branch account of the company bank, Hong Kong branch of the bank), investigation report (verification of the current status of withdrawal from the V corporate account to the CN association and other accounts), investigation report (verification of the current status of withdrawal from the V corporate account to the suspect-related corporate account), investigation report (verification of the current status of withdrawal from the V corporate account to the suspect-related corporate account), investigation report (investigation of telephone conversation of a witness CO), investigation report (Hearing of 25 million won related to the accusation);

1. D's copy of the D's confirmation of December 9, 2009, copy of the public letter of extension of the period of general sale in Yangju R apartment, copy of C's confirmation of July 3, 2010, copy of A's confirmation of November 2009, copy of D's agreement of July 30, 2009;

1. A copy of the construction contract of V and CP, a copy of the construction contract of each V and Q Q and one other, a copy of each construction contract of each V and CR, a copy of each certificate, a copy of each real estate sales contract, a copy of each unit-based R apartment sales contract, a copy of each unit-based R apartment housing supply contract (lease conversion), a copy of each unit-sale agency contract of Q and V, a copy of each unit-sale contract, and a copy of each unit-transfer contract;

1. 0 copies of bankbooks, copies of bankbooks, copies of bankbooks, copies of passbooks, copies of passbooks, copies of passbooks, copies of passbooks, copies of bankbooks, copies of bankbooks, copies of bankbooks, copies of passbooks, AR's copies, AV's copies, AV's account transactions, copies of passbooks, AV's accounts, copies of passbooks, copy of passbooks, F's account-free deposit certificates, F's account transactions, F's account-free check details, 0's account-free check details, 0's account-free check details, 5's account transactions in ADRs;

1. Full certificate of registration matters of Q Q;

[2017Gohap14]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness BW;

1. Each statement of the witness P and BI in the protocol of examination of witness other than the date of trial of the Seoul Central District Court 2015 High Court Order 7726;

1. The statement of the witness CT in the protocol of the fourth trial of the Seoul Central District Court 2015 High Court 7726;

1. The statement of the witness in the protocol of the sixth trial of the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Godan726;

1. Statement by the prosecutor's office on P (including the statement in the investigation of the replacement of BI);

1. Statement of the police about P;

1. A copy of each statement of performance, details of P's account transactions, proxy copies, each certificate of remittance, receipt, and each letter of loan;

[2017Gohap15]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness BW, K and BV;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol of B prepared by the prosecution;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol concerning BV;

1. Each police statement to K;

1. A complaint filed by K;

1. A certified copy of the registry of CV apartment;

1. Documents concerning a certificate of registered right, a certificate of establishing a mortgage, the details of repayment and a certificate of borrowing;

[2017Gohap182]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement made by the witnessCC and CB in the protocol of the third trial of the District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High Court 4940;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the protocol of the fifth trial of the High Court 2014 High Court 4940 5th trial;

1. Statement made by the witness B in the sixth protocol of the trial of the District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High Court 4940;

1. Statement A made by a witness in the protocol of trial 2014 high-ranking 4940 7th trial;

1. Statement made by the witness CG in the protocol of the proceedings of the District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High Court 4940 11th trial;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including each statement among the examination of the comparison of the A or D);

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused, B, and A (including each statement in the interrogation of D andCC)

1. Each police statement of CB,CC, and CG (including statements made in the course of the cross-examination of D);

1. Copy of a sales contract, remittance statement and deposit sheet;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Each reference to criminal records, each investigation report (not before disposition and report on results of confirmation), and each judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Each of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 347(1) and 30 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Criminal Act"); Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (integrated; hereinafter referred to as the "former Criminal Act"); Articles 347(1) and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including private documents)

B. Defendant C: Each of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (the fraud on AR, each of the victims), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the crime committed against X,0, AK, AM, AV, AY, AY, F, G, and H) of the Criminal Act, each of the victims, all of whom are involved, and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud committed against CB).

(c) Defendant D: Each of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (including fraud on AR, and fraud by each damaged person), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (including fraud by Na money, and fraud by each injured person), and Articles 347(1) and 30 of each Criminal Act (

(d) Defendant E: Articles 347(1) and 30 of each Criminal Act (including fraud and each victim);

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a punishment on June 13, 201) shall be imposed on the crime of uttering of a document establishing a right to collateral with heavy nature of the crime, and a punishment on the crime of uttering of a document establishing a right to collateral with severe nature of the crime)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each imprisonment with labor for the crime of fraud, fabrication of private documents, or uttering of private documents;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 39(1) [the crime of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7 at the time of sale] and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) which became final and conclusive on February 12, 2015, and the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive on July 7, 2016];

This paper examines the establishment of the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Code against Defendant A and the separate sentence of punishment.

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in cases where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the relationship of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the sentence may not

The interpretation is reasonable. Meanwhile, as long as there is no final and conclusive judgment, Article 38 of the Criminal Act is recognized as concurrent crimes between several crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 38 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to each of the crimes committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment is rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014; 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014).

According to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 3, 2008 and sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud on November 11, 2008 (No.4) and (2) from Seoul High Court on May 14, 2010 to May 2008, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) committed from October 28, 2010 to May 2008 and became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010 (no.e., Supreme Court Decision 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor from October 27, 2014 to October 27, 2014; and (no) from March 27, 2014 to March 21 to October 25, 201 to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor (no. 5 years of imprisonment with prison labor).

In accordance with the above legal principles, the crime and the crime of Article 7-2(b) through (e) of the judgment of this case are committed before the judgment becomes final, but the crime of Article 7-2(2) through (5) of the judgment is committed before the judgment becomes final, and Article 7-2(1) of the judgment is committed before the final date of the judgment. However, the crime of Article 7-2(1) through (5) of the judgment is committed before the final date of the judgment, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established as the crime of Article 37(1) of the Act is committed when each crime of Article 37(2) through (5) of the judgment was committed at the same time. The crime of Article 2, 3, 4, and 7(1) of the judgment of this case is committed before the final date of the judgment, but the crime of Article 2, 3, 4, and 7(1) of the judgment becomes a concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

On the other hand, between the crimes of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7-A and the crimes of Articles 7-2, 7-2, 7-2, 7-5 and the crimes of Articles 7-5, 7-2, 7-5, and 7-5 (a) of the judgment that was committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the crimes cannot be judged concurrently with the judgment. 5 as if there was no judgment, the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to be established among the crimes of Articles 37 of the judgment before and after the judgment. Accordingly, the crimes of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7-1 (a) through 7-2, and the crimes of Article 7-8 (b) through (e) and

B. Defendant C and D: The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 of the Criminal Act (i.e., Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7-A. Among crimes, the punishment shall be aggravated; (ii) the punishment shall be aggravated; (iii) the punishment shall be aggravated; (iv) the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); (iv) the punishment shall be aggravated; and (v) the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in

(b) Defendant C and D: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act and the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the largest quantity of crime and Article 50 of each Criminal Act

(c) Defendant E: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of fraud against F with the largest amount of the offense)

1. Statutory mitigation;

Defendant A: The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as there is a crime of the 2, 3, 4 and 7-A of the judgment, since there is a crime of the 2, 3, 4 and 7)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to the crime Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7-A. at the time of sale), 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to the crime, the following favorable circumstances

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant E: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A, C, D, E and their defense counsel

1. Judgment on the case (Defendant A, C, D, and E)

1. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

1) On the sole basis of the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult to find out how the co-defendants conspired to act as co-defendants on each of the crimes, and thus, this part of the indictment cannot be deemed to have been specified.

2) The Defendant concluded a valid sales agency contract with V on the instant apartment, and did not allow V, etc. to receive money for the purpose of selling the instant apartment as a loan money. The Defendant merely received money from V as the loan money, and did not know that the victims were the money paid to V as the sale price. The Defendant was aware of the fact that Q’s stamp image was arbitrarily dismissed from the Defendant, and forged the sales agency contract and sales contract and entered into a sales contract with the victims. In addition, although the Defendant had the authority to sell the instant apartment as the joint representative director of Q, the Defendant was dismissed from the joint representative director due to the unfair situation of Q, and thus the general sale of the said apartment was impossible. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud, and the Defendant did not mislead the victims in collusion with C, etc.

B. Judgment on the unspecified argument in the facts charged

1) Relevant legal principles

The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act that specifies the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. As such, it is sufficient to specify the facts underlying the public prosecution by stating the date, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts constituting the grounds for the public prosecution from other facts in light of the nature of the crime prosecuted, if the time, place, place, and purpose of the public prosecution are not specified in detail or some of the time, place, etc. of the public prosecution are unclear, and if it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his/her defense right, it cannot be said that the facts charged are not specified. However, insofar as the public prosecution is “the fact that the public prosecution constitutes a crime under the joint principal offense,” a combination of intent to realize the crime by jointly processing the crime should be specified to the extent that the person who did not directly participate in the criminal act can be held criminal liability as a co-principal (see, etc.).

2) Specific determination

As to the instant case in light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the contents as to the status of the Defendants and the criminal intent and the conspiracy relationship among the facts charged in the instant case, and the contents as to the co-defendants' specific execution of each individual crime, the Defendant, as a joint representative director of Qu who owns the instant apartment, was aware that it is impossible to sell the said apartment in general, but he conspired to acquire the money from the victims through C, D, etc. as the proceeds of the sale of the instant apartment through C, D, etc., to acquire it, and then, C, D, etc. to enter into a contract with the victims for the sale of the apartment in lots and to receive money from the victims in the name of the proceeds of the sale in lots, thereby processing them as a co-principal to commit their fraud, and it is difficult to view that there is no impediment

C. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

1) Around June 20, 2003, W Co., Ltd. newly built the instant apartment, which is a constructed rental house under the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 8015, Sept. 27, 2006; hereinafter the same) on the ground of the land outside CX and two parcels of Yangju-si. Q was established in CW around December 26, 2003, and owned the said apartment 98 households and carried out the rental housing project.

2) In the event that the instant apartment is converted to sale after the lapse of five years from the mandatory rental period pursuant to the relevant laws, such as the former Rental Housing Act, it should be converted to sale preferentially to the lessee who has certain qualifications

First of all, if the remaining number of households is at least 20 units after the completion of the conversion of sale, it may be sold in general, and even in this case, it shall undergo the procedures such as the announcement of invitation of residents, as prescribed by the rules on housing supply after obtaining approval from the competent government office, and the eligibility of residents shall be limited to non

3) On March 2008, the Defendant agreed to take over Q at the solicitation of CY, and entered into a contract with AJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AJ”) and CZ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CZ”) whose representative was CY Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DA Bank”) to take over the total of KRW 20,000 shares of Q from the DA Bank (hereinafter referred to as “DA Bank”).

4) The Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 2 billion out of the acquisition price as the money invested by T, and the intermediate payment of KRW 8 billion as the money loaned from the S Bank, and the balance of KRW 12 billion remains as the debt to the DB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DB”), which acquired the remainder claim from the DA Bank, and decided to pay the instant apartment sale upon completion of the apartment sale.

5) The Defendant entrusted all of the shares of Q acquired under the name of the AJ and CZ to the S Bank to secure the obligation to lend to the S Bank, and the S Bank became a first-class beneficial right holder, DB holder, and Q Q Q third beneficial right holder.

6) According to the business agreement between the S Bank, DB, AJ and CZ, the DC became a fund manager of Q. On April 18, 2008, AA, an attorney-at-law of the DC, a law firm, was appointed as a joint representative director of Q, together with CY.

7) On April 13, 2009, the Defendant was appointed as a joint representative director of Q as a successor of CY, and was detained on November 30, 2009, and was released on bail on March 23, 2010. Thereafter, the Defendant was dismissed from the joint representative director on the ground that he first purchased part of the apartment units of this case without delinquency of the principal and interest of the S Bank and obtaining approval for the general sale on July 20, 2010.

8) On the other hand, Q applied for approval for the preferential sale conversion to both viewing and viewing on June 19, 2008 after the lapse of five years from the mandatory rental period of the apartment of this case. On March 11, 2009 among the entire 998 households, for the household units (the first unit), for the household units (the second unit), on April 22, 2009, for the household units (the third unit), on June 137, 2009 (the third unit), for the household units (the fourth unit), on January 162, 2010 (the fourth unit), and on November 30, 2010 to the household units (5th unit) on November 30, 2010.

9) Q was obligated to pay approximately KRW 160,000,000 as interest on the 45.4 billion won in the National Housing Fund each month, and KRW 120,000,000 as interest on the 10.0 billion loan to S Bank. However, prior to the sale of the instant apartment, there was no special profit other than KRW 100,000,000 (one hundred million per household) paid from the lessee, and the Defendant had been in arrears for a considerable period of time until he was appointed as a joint representative on April 13, 2009, and did not pay KRW 1.6 billion for the defect repair expenses of the instant apartment.

10) On December 7, 2010, as Q continued to delay the principal and interest of loans, S Bank decided to sell Q’s bonds and stocks en bloc, and announced a public announcement of tender on November 12, 2010, and paid in full the amount of KRW 6.51 billion for DDD price, a corporation, a single tender, thereby acquiring shares of Q on December 7, 2010.

D. Determination on the criminal intent and conspiracy of the defendant's defraudation

1) In the case of joint principal offenders who jointly process two or more persons (hereinafter the same applies to the judgment as to the assertion by other Defendants) and commit a crime, the conspiracy or conspiracy does not necessarily need to be made explicitly, but may be made objectively and implicitly, and in any case, the intent to jointly process the crime and realize it jointly. In a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent along with the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements should be proven by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent given the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts by using the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006).

Meanwhile, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is not a confession of the defendant, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, and the criminal intent is also sufficient, not a conclusive intentional intent, but a dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28,

2) Specific determination

In addition to the above facts, considering the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant prepared a sales agency contract with V with the knowledge that the general sale of the apartment of this case would not be properly performed, and issued a sales contract with the victims, and approved V to receive money as the sale price after entering into the sales contract with the victims, and paid it as a payment for the sale price. In addition to the above facts and circumstances, if the facts and circumstances are consistent, it is recognized that the defendant had the criminal intent to obtain fraud and received money from the victims in collusion with C and received money as the sale price. The defendant and the defense counsel's assertion are not acceptable.

A) The Defendant, due to the Defendant’s loan obligation to the S Bank, was raising funds to repay the principal and interest of the loan debt from S Bank around 2009, which had experienced difficulties in the instant apartment sales business, and issued 50 copies of the sales contract to CG through CG. Then, on July 2009, the Defendant found in V’s office located in Guri-si around the end of July 2009 and affixed a direct seal on the sales agency contract with V [2016 Gohap 1270 evidence records (24-2) 30 pages].

B) The Defendant stated to the effect that, at the end of lending the business fund, V only delivered the sales contract and the sales contract for the sale in lots was necessary for financing, and that V did not approve the sale in lots of the apartment of this case. The Defendant first offered to V, stating that it was inappropriate for V to be used for the actual sale in lots as it stated that the sale in lots was "presumptive use", and the Defendant heard that V is acting as sales in lots using the above sales contract and collected the documents related to the sale in lots, such as the sales in lots, at the V office located in the Guri-si. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20094, Feb. 1, 2009>

C) However, in this Court stated, “C, once the Defendant needs money, requested that the lessee’s household unit confirmed as not entitled to pre-sale due to an illegal pre-sale, etc. be sold to the Defendant and received the price. The amount paid to the Defendant was not borrowed but delivered to the Defendant.” The Prosecutor stated that “The Defendant, once he sold the pre-sale contract, would have been responsible and transferred the ownership at the last stage of the process of the pre-sale,” and the Prosecutor stated that “The Defendant, once he sold the pre-sale contract.”

[2016Gohap1270 Evidence No. 527, 528 pages]

D) In this Court, CG also prepared and executed a sales agency contract in V to raise funds in the situation where the amount of funds is needed due to the loan obligations to S Bank. However, as security for financing, C has the authority to actually conclude a sales contract." Although the Defendant knew that the sales contract was made by the check sale contract, it was well known that the contract was made by the Defendant, but it had already been settled, and the original contract was delivered to V with the Defendant’s permission. The Defendant’s collection of the provisional sales contract at the V office was not a sales agency, but rather a form in which the contract was prepared, and the Defendant approved the sales agency of V to raise the business funds.

E) Furthermore, around November 19, 2009, the Defendant directly prepared a written confirmation that the right to vicariously sell the apartment of this case belongs to V (2016da1270 evidence No. 4 (24-13)), and around November 20, 2009, the Defendant issued a right to vicariously sell the apartment of this case to the victim, NN, AR, and C located. In other places, the Defendant paid the remainder to V. This means that the Defendant did not have the right to vicariously sell the apartment of this case, and that the Defendant would have the right to vicariously sell the apartment of this case, and that the Defendant would have the right to vicariously sell the apartment of this case by excluding D with 100 apartment buildings if it is necessary to do so before the general sale.

F) On November 19, 2009, the Defendant: (a) prepared a written confirmation on November 19, 2009; and (b) acknowledged the fact that the victimN and the AR were directly exchanged on November 20, 2009; (c) signed a written confirmation with the intent that the investors who are able to adjust the obligations of loans to the S Bank are required to prepare; and (d) when the victimN and the AR were met, the Defendant confirmed that Q’s joint representative director was A.

However, the victimN and AR are identical and made a statement that the investigative agency and the defendant confirmed the right to sell the apartment complex of this case in this court. The victims agreed to purchase 25-30 households of this case from V on October 21, 2009 and sold the apartment complex of this case to a third party. However, the victims were selling the apartment complex of this case in the way of resale to a third party. However, upon demanding payment of the balance from V to demand payment of the purchase price to be made in Q not Q, it seems that the defendant, the representative director of Q who owned the apartment of this case, who is the representative director of Q Q who owned the apartment of this case, was to directly check whether V valid sales agency and deposit the sale price to V. In such a situation, if the victims were the defendant only, it does not seem that the defendant confirmed whether Q's joint representative director complies with Q's order.

G) As examined in the above facts, from August 2009 to November 2009, from the date when the contract for sale in lots was concluded with the victims to the date when the third priority sale was completed, the fourth priority sale was in progress after the completion of the third priority sale for the tenants of the apartment of this case, and there was no general sale procedure that can be conducted after the completion of the first priority sale. Furthermore, there was no disagreement on the direction of the progress of the apartment of this case with the joint representative director AA of Q Q, appointed by the S Bank, and there was no opinion on Q’s joint representative director A and U.S. who concluded the contract for sale in lots with Q, claiming that they have the right to sell the apartment of this case by proxy.

At the time of entering into a contract for sale, the Defendant stated in the police that Q’s joint representative director A was a situation in which Q was unable to sell in a normal way because the victims were at any time at the time, and that Q’s joint representative director A could not sell in a normal manner (2016 high Gohap1270 (24-18)).

Considering these circumstances, even if the Defendant pre-sale of the instant apartment via V, it is deemed that the victims, the other party to the sales contract, were fully aware that it is difficult for the victims, who were the parties to the sales contract, to normally transfer the ownership of the instant apartment. Nevertheless, the Defendant approved the Defendant to pre-sale the instant apartment and receive the sales price.

H) From July 31, 2009 to November 26, 2009, a total of KRW 214 million was deposited from V from July 31, 2009 to November 26, 2009, and the Defendant stated that the amount of KRW 650,000,000 was paid in total over several hundredss since the police and the prosecution issued the sales contract to V. This appears to be part of the amount of damage that the victims remitted to V for sales price (2016 high-scale 1270 (24-23), 33, 2(2)(2)(2)(2)(4-42(2) of the evidence record No. 842).

The Defendant did not know that the money deposited as above was part of the purchase price paid by the victims, and merely stated that V was aware that he loaned the money that he provided as collateral to oneself. However, the Defendant received money by dividing V into several to a million won unit through several months after issuance of the purchase-sale contract to V. However, the Defendant knew that V was the money deposited as the purchase price after entering into a contract for the sale of the apartment of this case, rather than the purchase-sale contract for the apartment of this case.

2. Judgment on Defendant C’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Although the Defendant had worked in V from January 2009 to April 201, 201, the actual operator of V is CF. The Defendant knows that Q representative director A and the construction contract was entered into with the effective sales agency contract and the construction contract for the apartment of this case, and only he was in charge of V in the process of entering into the sales contract or the construction contract for the apartment of this case with the victims according to the CF’s direction. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the criminal intent of defraudation, and there is no fact that the Defendant conspired with A, D, etc. for the victims.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to normally sell the instant apartment, was in collusion with A, D, etc. while leading the instant apartment project, leading the victims to enter into the sales contract and construction contract for the said apartment, and was paid money from the victims for the sale price and the construction deposit. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

1) In the police, the prosecution, and this court, “B was a corporation for which CF had conducted educational activities, but Q and A was introduced by the Defendant to Q and CF, and thereafter the Defendant was led by the actual operator of Q and A, and thereafter the Defendant is implementing the instant apartment project under the name of V.CF also stated that “CF was aware of the instant apartment project under the name of V.” In this court, “CF was introduced from the Defendant and became aware of the instant apartment project. The first time, but the Defendant had been holding the right to sell the housing in lots. However, the Defendant began to conduct the sales business. V was a corporation that was originally engaged in educational activities, but it was in a dormant status, and the Defendant was made available for the sales agency business.”

2) In this court, D stated that the Defendant would have been able to receive fees for the purchase of the apartment of this case, and suggested that the Defendant would have aided the conclusion of the sales contract at the V office, and that E was also aware of the fact that the Defendant was 'C representative who works for the Defendant in this court as 'C representative who works for the Defendant in V', and that the Defendant led the sale of the apartment of this case.

3) In addition to the statements made by B, CF, D, and E, examining the following statements made by the victims who concluded the sales contract and the construction contract for the instant apartment, V’s apartment related project would have led the Defendant to perform the apartment related project.

① The Defendant and D made a statement in this court that the Defendant had the main explanation during the process of entering into a contract. The Victim AR explained in this court that D was first searched at the office of this court, and the Defendant also stated that the present status of the apartment sale in this case was written on the lurg. The VictimN, AR stated that “A would be made on November 20, 2009, the general sale of the apartment in this case on or around March 2010,” and immediately thereafter, the Defendant stated that “A would be safe, and it would be possible to sell the apartment in general if it was around December 2009.”

② On October 28, 2009, the victim AV stated at the police that “AV did not contact the Defendant at the time of entering into the sales contract for the apartment of this case, but did not sell the apartment of this case until December 2009, and the Defendant came to seek at the V’s office because it did not sell the apartment of this case, and the Defendant called D’s superior, and the Defendant asked him to ask him. The Defendant said that he would not know because he would be acting for the sales by delegation from Q.”

③ The victim F stated in the police that “When concluding the construction contract with V on apartment 150 households of this case with V, the Defendant would return money if he did not perform the construction work, the Defendant would return money. At all times, the Defendant was present at the V office, which was said to be well-known by the Defendant.” The prosecutor stated that “The Defendant would not have been the place at the time of entering into the contract, but he would have been responsible for him as his representative at the time of entering into the contract.” [The 2016 Gohap1270 evidence record No. 6 (24-2), 215, 8 (24-3)].

④ In this court, the victim G stated that “The main explanation of the instant apartment-related construction works was D, but the Defendant also served as an intermediary during the process of entering into the contract.” The police and the prosecution stated that “The Defendant explained the relationship between Q and V having been awarded a contract with Q at the time of entering into the construction work, and that it would be the actual president of Q and V, and that the Defendant would be responsible for all of D’s work” (2016 high-scale 1270 evidence Nos. 475, 8 (24-16), 349).

⑤ The victim AY made a statement at the police that “V office was found and entered into a sales contract with D president, etc. The D president’s mobile phone number is DE.” Since the above number is the mobile phone number used at D at the time, it is [2016 high Gohap1270, 18, 112 of evidence records (24-9), the victim AY, and the victim AY, upon the Defendant’s request, received explanation from D who carried out sales agency, and appears to have entered into a sales contract for the apartment of this case. The Defendant, around July 3, 2010, received KRW 100,000 from the purchase price of the apartment of this case as the purchase price of the apartment of this case, and issued KRW 30,00,000,000,000,000 for the sales contract of this case.]

4) From March 2009, the Defendant began to recruit buyers of the instant apartment from around March 2009, and from July 2009, there was a person who entered into a contract with the knowledge that the registration was immediately possible and mistakenly, and the person who made such erroneous explanation is D.

However, the victims stated that not only D in the investigative agency and this court, but also the defendant explained that if the sale in general is carried out immediately, it is possible to register immediately, and that the defendant was also in charge of the sale in lots in return for the fees. Since the defendant also recognized that he was in charge of the sale in lots, it shall be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, either directly or through D, by deceiving the victims as if the sale in lots could be carried out within the nearest time to the victims without any problem.

5) The Defendant demanded at the police station that “A shall not deposit the sales price into the account managed by Q’s trust company, and deposited the sales price into V. A had concluded a sales contract even though it was not possible to sell the sales price due to the need to pay money. I also thought that the contract was erroneous after hearing the explanation of A. It was also believed that it was erroneous.” The Defendant made a statement that each sales contract with the victims was not concluded normally (2016 Gohap1270, 707 (24-24), 590, 591).

6) In addition, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the victim F, H and G construction contract at the prosecutor’s office in accordance with the direction of the author. Since U.S., the other sales agency for two to three months after the end of the contract, the Defendant explained that the transfer of ownership and the construction work is possible. The receipt of the construction deposit from the victims is due to the demand of A for money. The payment of the sale price and the construction deposit received from the victims was returned to the persons who concluded the sales contract before the victims and most of the sales contract were used to recover the sales contract, and some of them were delivered to A. In order to raise money at the request of A, the Defendant was paid the sale price and the construction deposit received from the victims in order to raise money at the request of A, and it was acknowledged that the sales contract was concluded by a way of return to the wind that does not proceed as planned (2016 Gohap1270 evidence No. 1270-3)).

7) Ultimately, the Defendant, as the operator of V, had been actively engaged in the instant apartment project, and even though he was well aware that it was difficult to properly carry out the instant apartment project, he could have Q Q’s general apartment sales project properly carried out. However, upon the A’s request to provide funds, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims directly or through D, to enter into a construction contract and sales contract on the instant apartment for the purpose of gaining profits, such as commission, etc., and by receiving the construction deposit and the sales price from the victims and acquired them by deceit.

3. Judgment on Defendant D’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant believed that V had the authority to sell the apartment of this case on behalf of the victims and to carry out artificial inseminations and water works, and that the Defendant and E had the authority to sell the apartment of this case in return for payment, transferred part of the interior and water works which the Defendant and E had been subcontracted from V to the victims, or the victims had the intention to directly conclude a contract with V, and only received several introductions while participating in the sales contract for the apartment of this case with V and the victims. Since the Defendant believed that the general sale of the apartment of this case can be done normally, there was no criminal intent of defraudation, the Defendant did not act as a subsidiary in the process of concluding the contract with the victims, and there was no fact of deceiving the victims in collusion with C, etc.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant, even though he was aware that the general sale of the apartment of this case was difficult, can be acknowledged that the Defendant, in collusion with C, etc., had the victims enter into each interior construction contract and the sales contract, and had the Defendant pay the construction deposit or the sales price in return for the contract. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not accepted.

1) Examining the statements from the victims as follows, the Defendant actively participated in the process of concluding each contract for sale in lots and each contract for construction in lots by explaining that the apartment of this case was sold to the victims immediately and preparing a direct contract.

① In the police and this court, the victim F expressed that “Once you go to the V office, the Defendant mainly talked about the overall situation of the sale in lots. He received the explanation from the Defendant and E, and received 150 households out of 300 apartment buildings of this case, which he concluded with V, and thereafter received the remainder of 150 households as BF and the Defendant’s proposal. After that, the Defendant and E suggested that he will receive additional 150 households’ interior works, and eventually, he was awarded a subcontract for the said 450 apartment buildings.”

② The Victim G stated in this Court that “The main explanation was given by the Defendant at the time of entering into the construction contract, E was supplemented and supplemented in its contents.” The police and the prosecution led the Defendant to perform all the work, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the construction contract was concluded with the belief of the Defendant’s horse [Article 2016 Gohap1270, 476, 478, 5 (24-18), 105, 106, 108, 8 (24-3), 345, 346 of the Evidence No. 476, 470, 5 (24-18), 2016, 106, 108, 8 (24-3), 346] In addition, the Victim H stated in this Court that “Although the specific contents are not memory, the Defendant explained the construction work of the apartment.”

③ In this court, the victim DNA stated that C and the Defendant provided the main explanation in the process of concluding the sales contract for the apartment of this case, and the victim AR also sought to the V office in this court and stated that the priority sale was completed and it is possible to sell the apartment of this case to the general public. The victimN and the AR also stated that “The victim, N, and R found the distribution office of V located in the AO, and the Defendant provided a statement that “The Defendant provided a talk with the instructions and talks, and the down payment was made by paying the down payment, the number may be designated, and the registration may be completed within one week if the remainder is paid” (Article 2016 Gohap1270, 8 (24-2), 247, 248, 249).

④ The victim AK and AM concluded a sales contract on the apartment of this case with the introduction of the victim F. The victims stated that the prosecutor's explanation was sought from the defendant and that they concluded a sales contract on the apartment of this case. The victim F also stated in the prosecutor's office that the defendant was entitled to purchase the apartment of this case to AM and BK, who is the birthee, by explaining that the defendant had no condition to receive the apartment of this case from the present time, and that there was a household which had already been registered (2016 Gohap1270, 8 (24-3), 366, 367, 368).

⑤ On the other hand, around December 9, 2009, the Defendant directly prepared and issued a written confirmation that he would pay the termination price of the sales contract to the Victim AK by December 14, 2009 [2016 Gohap1270 evidence records 1 (24-1)]. The Defendant, who is not a regular employee of Q or V, was involved in the process of concluding the sales contract with the Victim AK in depth.

6. BF, which introduced the victim 0 and X to the defendant, stated in this court that "the person who explained the apartment of this case and prepares a written contract shall be the defendant", and the victim 0 also stated that the police entered into the construction contract of the apartment of this case with the defendant and E [5 rights (24-18) No. 5 of evidence No. 2016 and No. 90 of this case].

7) From this court to this court, the victim X stated that he consulted with the Defendant about the terms of the contract and prepared the contract in the same way at the time of entering into the sales contract on August 2009. The prosecutor also stated that the Defendant was the date of the public sale notice around September 2009 at the latest and that the payment of the balance may cause damage to the registration and delivery (2016 high Gohap1270 (24-3)).

8. The victim AV stated that the police came to know the defendant from the introduction of DF and AW, and that the defendant prepared a sales contract for the apartment of this case with the defendant at the office of V [2016 Gohap1270 (24-5) No. 3rd, fourth, fourth (24-16) (24-16)].

2) Around March 26, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with CF and the instant apartment under the name of DG for interior works, and paid KRW 70,00,00 as construction deposit [200,000 as evidence 9 (24-24), No. 1126, 1146] Around May 11, 2009, the Defendant agreed with CF to receive construction deposit if the construction contract is not implemented in order to secure the above construction deposit [2016,1270, as evidence 9 (24-24)]. However, the instant apartment was not sold in general until May 11, 2009, and the Defendant did not know that the aforementioned construction contract was not implemented. The Defendant knew that QV did not carry out the construction deposit.

3) Nevertheless, on July 31, 2009, the Defendant received money from the Victim G and H as a construction deposit, and entered into a contract to transfer the said construction right that he received from V [2016 high-priced 1270 evidence records (24-23), 780, 781, 782 pages]. Upon C’s request, the Defendant explained that it would be possible to sell the apartment of this case immediately to the purchaser of the apartment of this case, and received the introduction expenses equivalent to KRW 1.5 million per household in return for the payment of the sale price to the purchaser of the apartment of this case by the account of V.

4) On August 31, 2009, the Defendant received directly from the Victim F to August 14, 2009 the total amount of KRW 65 million from the Victim F, from August 3, 2009 to August 14, 2009, KRW 40 million from the Victim G on July 31, 2009, KRW 45 million from the Victim G and H on August 13, 2009, KRW 160 million from the Victim N on October 21, 2009, KRW 40 million from the Victim E and KRW 5 million from the Victim’s G and H on August 13, 2009, and KRW 40 million from the Victim AR on November 9, 2009 to the victims’ account in his/her own name or AT.

5) Ultimately, the Defendant, under the name of DG, concluded a construction contract on the apartment of this case with CF, but failed to sell the apartment of this case, and failed to receive the construction deposit without being sold in general as agreed. In order to obtain profit from collecting the above construction deposit and receiving the introduction fee, the Defendant, who participated in the instant apartment project of V led by C, and should explain to the victims as soon as the sale of the apartment of this case was done soon without any problem.

4. Judgment on Defendant E’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant thought that the instant apartment should be sold to the general public, and concluded an artificial complex construction contract with CF and the instant apartment 300 households under the name of DH with DH, and there was only fact that the victim F was in excess of the above construction authority for payment, and there was no deception of the victim F in collusion with C and D. In addition, the Defendant did not deceiving the said victims during the process of concluding the instant apartment construction contract or the sales contract with V.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant, despite being aware that the general sale of the apartment of this case is difficult, conspired with C and D, by deceiving the victims to enter into each interior construction contract and sales contract, and then, had them receive or pay the construction deposit or the sales price directly from the victims in return for such act. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.

1) Around March 28, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with CF and the instant apartment 300 households under the name of DH, and entered into a sales contract with the instant apartment 2 households around May 2009 [The number of pages 7, 720 of evidence No. 712, 720 of the instant apartment 209 [the number of pages 2016 high-priced1270 (24-24)].

The Defendant concluded a construction contract on March 28, 2009 and paid KRW 40 million to CF under the name of the construction deposit, and the real estate acquisition agreement prepared to secure the above security was made to receive a refund by adding interest to the construction deposit up to May 11, 2009 (as the agreement was concluded to receive a refund by adding up the interest to the construction deposit until May 11, 2009 (2016Gohap1270 (24-17)). Thus, if the construction contract is not implemented by May 11, 2009 in a situation where the construction contract is not implemented by the date of May 11, 2009, the Defendant could also be sufficiently written that the general sale of the instant apartment is likely to not proceed as planned by Q or V.

2) Nevertheless, on June 30, 2009, the Defendant deceivings the victim F by explaining as if the general sale was approved and the interior works were carried out, and concluded a partnership agreement with the victim and the 300 households of the apartment complex of this case with respect to the interior works of the 300 households of the above 300 households, and received the payment of KRW 45 million in return for the transfer of 150 households to the victim. On July 24, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 50 million in return for the remainder of 150 households from the victim and received KRW 50 million in return for the transfer of 150 households (2016 Gohap1270, 1270, 24-1). Since then, the victim separately concluded a contract for the construction works of the apartment of this case and the construction works of the instant 150 households.

3) In the police and this court, the victim F explained that “the general approval was obtained from the Defendant and the construction was entered. The Defendant and D explained together with the Defendant that the 300 household unit for the instant apartment was transferred from the Defendant, and in addition, the Defendant and D entered into an agreement with the 150 household. The Defendant and D cannot be said to have more actively exercised their authority because they are bound to do so. In addition, the Defendant and D explained that the construction starts at one month.”

4) Meanwhile, in this court, the BF introduced the victim 0, X to the Defendant, and stated that the said victims entered into a construction contract or sales contract on the apartment of this case with V and D, and the police also stated that the victim 0 entered into a construction contract on the apartment of this case with V via the Defendant and D [2016 high Gohap1270 (24-18) 90 pages]. The Defendant also stated in the prosecutor’s office that the victim was the victim and the victim was the victim of the instant apartment of this case, and that the victim was introduced to D after hearing the statement that he want to do construction on the apartment of this case. [2016 high Gohap1270 (24-24)]

5) The Defendant introduced a person who purchased the instant apartment to V from April 2009 to September 2009, and received the introduction fee of KRW 1.5 million per household through D (1.5 million, total of KRW 23 million (20,000) from V (2016 high-scale 1270 evidence records 8 (24-24), 1019, 1031). The Defendant was fully aware that the general sale of the instant apartment was not run properly after May 11, 2009, but it appears that the victim 0 and X arranged to enter into a construction contract and sales contract with V to receive the introduction fee.

II. Determinations as to Cases 2017Gohap14, 15 (Defendant A)

1. Determination on each crime of fraud against Defendant A’s P (2017Gohap14)

A. Determination on the crime No. 7-A. and the crime No. 7-B.

1) Summary of the assertion

The Defendant received a total of KRW 56.4 million from BI on or around July 7, 2010 and around July 13, 2010, and received KRW 17 million on or around January 27, 201. However, the Defendant did not know that the Defendant borrowed money from CT and BI, and did not know that the received money was the victim’s money, and did not make any false statement, such as having lent KRW 30 million as stated in the facts charged, to have it repaid within three months. Accordingly, the Defendant did not deceive the victim as a criminal intent by deception.

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant, as if he could normally repay the victim P through BI, would have received each amount stated in the facts charged as the borrowed money. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A) From this Court, P, through BI, lent the Defendant a sum of KRW 56.4 million around July 9, 2010 and July 13, 2010 to the Defendant through BI, stated that “The apartment of this case was introduced by CT and sold in lots, but the apartment of this case was not sold in lots. In addition, I talk that the Defendant requires money from CT, and that BI would lend KRW 56.4 million from the principal amount to KRW 60 million by delivering that talk to BI, thereby deducting interest from the principal amount to KRW 60,000,000. BI would have received from BI, and the Defendant would have used and repaid only 3 months.”

B) BI stated in this Court that “T calls to sell the apartment of this case by the Defendant, and there was no room to borrow KRW 150 million at the attorney’s expense, which is necessary to lend KRW 30 million to P. It was 28,200,000,000 after deducting the direct Defendant from the interest of KRW 30,000,000,000. It was notarial as CT would lend more than KRW 30,000,000,000 to P. At the first week, BI stated that “The Defendant would pay back the amount of KRW 28,20,000,000 to P, which is 2-3 months or more.”

C) Upon receipt of the above KRW 56.4 million, the Defendant prepared a letter of performance to BI that “if he/she fails to pay each of the above KRW 30 million until October 8, 2010, and KRW 30 million until October 12, 2010, he/she shall transfer each of the apartment units of this case to BI” (Article 26, 27 of the Evidence No. 2017Dahap14). The content of the letter of performance is consistent with the statement of P and BI that the Defendant promised to use and repay the above money only for three months.

D) Meanwhile, the victim P stated in this court that “Around January 27, 2011, the victim P lent KRW 17 million to the Defendant, “Around January 27, 2011, through BI lent KRW 17 million to the Defendant that he/she would make a full payment of KRW 60 million prior to the loan of KRW 17 million, and further he/she borrowed KRW 17 million.” In addition, the victim P stated in this court that “Around January 27, 2011, he/she lent KRW 60 million to the Defendant at any time, and stated that “Around January 27, 2011, he/she lent KRW 17 million to the Defendant that the Defendant should lend KRW 17 million per day, and only KRW 17 million to the Defendant.”

E) If the victim P borrowed money additionally, it appears that the Defendant trusted the Defendant’s selling that it can resolve the existing debt, such as the purchase price of the apartment in this case. However, at the time, the Defendant did not provide funds necessary for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan to the S Bank and the return of the lease deposit to the lessee of the apartment in this case, and was unable to properly carry out the apartment in this case. Furthermore, the dispute with Q’s joint representative director AA attorney appointed by the S Bank was pending and the Defendant was dismissed from the joint representative director around July 20, 2010. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had the intent and ability to repay the debt at the time of borrowing the above money from the victim P.

B. Determination as to the crime of C, D, E, or E, of Article 7-3 of the holding;

1) Summary of the assertion

around April 14, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Victim P, and did not borrow a total of KRW 200 million as stated in the facts charged. The Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million around May 9, 201, and KRW 29 million around January 31, 2013, respectively. The Defendant used money borrowed from the Victim in acquiring and implementing a construction project by acquiring the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DI land (hereinafter referred to as “DI land”), but, as a result, the Defendant was sufficiently able to repay it at the time of borrowing the money due to the failure of the project.

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant may be recognized to have received the same money as stated in the facts charged under the name of the victim P in spite of the intent and ability to repay.

The defendant and defense counsel shall not be accepted.

A) On April 201, 201, the victim P borrowed KRW 200 million from this court to the Defendant, the Defendant’s business promoted on the DI’s land to resolve the apartment sale problem of this case, and the money should be uneased. If the Defendant lends KRW 200 million to the Defendant, the Defendant would pay interest of KRW 20 million per month and return it after three months. The victim P borrowed KRW 200 million to the Defendant. The KRW 100 million directly delivered the check to the Defendant and transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account upon request by I.

B) On April 1, 2011, the Defendant asserted that the amount received from the victim was not KRW 200 million, but KRW 100 million. However, the victim stated consistently with the investigative agency and this court that 100 million won was delivered to the Defendant by way of remitting the amount to the Defendant’s account. The Defendant’s defense counsel submitted a written opinion recognizing that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim around April 1, 201 and KRW 100 million around April 14, 201, in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da7726, May 5, 201 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da726). The Defendant voluntarily stated that it would receive KRW 200 million from the victim in the process of examining the P. The Defendant’s own statement that it would be paid KRW 200 million to the Victim’s own.

C) On the other hand, around May 9, 201, the victim P stated in this court that the Defendant lent KRW 150 million to the persons related to the public auction procedure for DI land, using the land at a low price, thereby allowing them to receive a successful bid at a low price, and the Defendant lent KRW 150 million to the Defendant. On January 2013, 2013, the victim P stated that the Defendant borrowed KRW 29 million to the Defendant for a public sale of DI’s land at a later time, and that the Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million to the Defendant at a later time. BI stated in this court that the victim P lent KRW 150 million to the Defendant on May 12, 201, the victim P made a detailed statement about the circumstances that the victim P gave him/her a detailed statement, and that is consistent with the victim’s statement.

D) The Defendant appears to have had a plan to implement a construction project after purchasing DI’s land in the public auction procedure at the time of borrowing each money indicated in the facts charged from the victim P. However, considering the fact that Q Q’s general apartment sales project promoted by the Defendant was terminated due to the shortage of business funds and disputes with the S Bank, etc., there is no objective data to verify whether the Defendant borrowed the above money from P from the victim P was actually used in the DI’s land-related project, and the Defendant continuously borrowed money from the victim several face-to-faces over several occasions, and the Defendant appears to have no sufficient funds to promote the development project normally, taking account of the fact that the Defendant would have purchased DI’s land and there is no sufficient funds to promote the development project, the Defendant would have had no intent and ability to repay the debt from P at the time of borrowing each of the above money from the victim P.

2. The judgment of Defendant A on the charge of forging each private document and uttering of the falsifieded Private Document (2017Gohap15), and the summary of the assertion

The Defendant obtained K’s permission and prepared each document written in the facts charged.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that the defendant arbitrarily prepared the "written evidence of registration rights" as of April 15, 201 under the name of K, "the details of repayment and the certificate of borrowing" as of June 13, 201, and "a contract for settlement of mortgage" as of June 13, 201 and exercised it without the permission of K. The defendant and the defense counsel's assertion are rejected.

(i) a letter on the certificate of registration;

A) On April 15, 2011, in the name of K, each written statement on the registration right certificate of K on April 15, 201, is written in the Defendant’s pen, stating that “The registration right certificate of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CV apartment DJho (hereinafter “CV apartment”) owned by K, which is entrusted as a collateral, shall be returned after temporarily using the lease contract from April 15, 201 to April 25, 201,” and is written in the Defendant’s pen (2017 Gohap15 evidence No. 94).

B) K consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that each of the above registration rights certificates was first presented in the process of civil action against BV and that it did not allow the Defendant to prepare such documents.

C) In addition, BV also stated in this Court that “Around April 201, through East DK, leased KRW 100 million to K and received a registration certificate for CV apartment as security. At the time, at the time, the Defendant received a registration certificate on the right to registration from the Defendant and did not confirm whether K did not separately allow the Defendant to prepare the above letter.”

D) While recognizing that the Defendant prepared a written statement on the certificate of the right to registration, the Defendant asserts that K received the statement from BW that it needs a certificate of the right to registration in order to conclude a new lease agreement on CV apartment, and that K prepared it with the consent of K. On April 27, 2009, K entered into a lease agreement on a lessee DL and CV apartment (No. 514 of the evidence record No. 2017Gohap15) but it is difficult to deem that the certificate of the right to registration of real estate for the purpose of concluding a lease agreement is necessary. In addition, in light of the fact that B did not participate in the preparation of a written statement on the certificate of the right to registration in conformity with the prosecutor’s office and this court, and that each of the above written statements was the first document at the investigative agency, the above argument by the Defendant

(2) Details of redemption and a certificate of borrowing and contract to establish a mortgage;

A) On April 14, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 177 million from BV, and agreed to repay KRW 180,800,000 from May 6, 201, the Defendant received additional KRW 100,000 from BV on June 13, 2011. In order to borrow KRW 100,000,000, the Defendant was allowed to use documents related to the registration of CV apartment for the purpose of security within a limit of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

B) The terms “a repayment and a loan certificate,” and “a collateral creation contract,” include: (a) K pays 150 million won to DM, who is the husband of BV, until June 22, 201; (b) 170 million won until June 30, 201; and (c) in the event that K does not repay the said debt, a collateral security right is established for CV apartment amounting to KRW 390 million with the maximum debt amount (30 million with evidence No. 95, 96, 97).

C) Regarding the details of reimbursement, loan certificate, and mortgage contract, K has the fact that the Defendant allowed BV to borrow 100 million won from BV as collateral for the registration documents of CV apartment because it is necessary to pay money for the DI’s land project. However, it is consistent with the Defendant’s consistent statement that there was no permit to prepare documents recognizing the liability of 390 million won with maximum debt amount and 320 million won with debt amount, including the existing debt owed to BV.

D) BW stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that, in the process of additionally borrowing KRW 100 million from BV on June 13, 201, the Defendant was allowed to offer the security of CV apartment within the limit of KRW 100 million, it was arbitrarily prepared to include the Defendant’s existing obligation. BV also stated in this court that there was no lack of confirmation as to whether the said documents were authentic by means of the details of repayment, the loan certificate, and the written contract to establish the right to collateral security, in exchange for K or directly with the loan certificate and the written contract to establish the right to collateral security.

II. Judgment on the Case (Defendant C)

1. Summary of the assertion

Although the Defendant thought that the general sale of the apartment of this case would be done normally and there was some part of the sales agency business of the V, there was no direct participation in the sales contract concluded by the victim CB. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intention of defraudation, and there was no fact that the Defendant had received money by deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant, through D, by deceiving the victim CB to enter into a sales contract for the apartment of this case, and then, acquired 40 million won from the victim to the account in the name of V as the sale price. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable.

A. A. Around August 18, 2009, D entered into a sales contract for the apartment of this case with the victim CB, which was found in V’s office with the introduction ofCC around August 18, 2009, and had the victim transferred KRW 40 million to V’s account as the down payment.

B. The victim CB entered into a sales contract with the police and the court with respect to the process of the conclusion of the said contract “CB, upon the introduction of theCC, after hearing the explanation about D in V office. D stated that the intermediate payment was transferred when the down payment was made only KRW 40 million, and the remainder can be extended by additional loan, and therefore, can be purchased an apartment immediately.”

C. As seen in the above I. 2-b, the Defendant was aware that it would not properly sell the apartment of this case, and the Defendant led the sales agency business of the above apartment of this case, and had D explain to D that it would promptly sell the apartment of this case, and received money as the price for the sale in lots. Therefore, even if the Defendant was not directly involved in the process of concluding the above sales contract of the victim CB, it shall be sufficiently recognized that he deceiving the victim through D and acquired the proceeds for the sale in lots.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

(i)Offences Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7(a) of the holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than nine months, but not more than five years and not more than 15 days;

2) A crime under section 7-2(b) through (e) and a crime under section 8: Imprisonment for not more than 15 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria; and

1) Each fraud (Article 7-2(b) through (e) at the time of sale).

[Determination of Types] General Fraud (Determination of Types 10 million won or more, less than 50 million won, and the amount calculated by adding the amount of profit of each crime to the amount of profit according to the method of processing the same concurrent crimes)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to four years (Basic Area) imprisonment

2) The crime of forging each private document (No. 84)

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Document)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Six months to two years (Basic Area)

3) The scope of the final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes: one year to five years (one year of imprisonment, which is the lowest limit of the basic crime; four years, which is the highest limit of the scope of the sentence among other crimes, shall be aggregated with 1/2 year to 1/3 of the highest limit of the scope of the sentence among other crimes; and 8 months to 1/3 of the highest limit of the scope of the sentence among other crimes)

(c) Determination of sentence;

The amount obtained by the Defendant by deceiving the victim X, etc. through V is a large amount of KRW 1.684 million in total, and the amount obtained by deceiving the victim P to borrow money. The Defendant also forged and exercised private documents under the name of K in order to obtain pecuniary profit by borrowing KRW 100 million from the apartment in the name of K as security. The Defendant committed the Defendant’s criminal act, causing serious property damage, and the victims are not recovered. There is no circumstance that the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims, and that the Defendant did not endeavor to recover the victims’ damage. Nevertheless, even though the Defendant prepared and made a sales agency contract with the victims, the Defendant did not permit it to sell the apartment in this case, but did not permit it to do so, and even if it is consistent, it is highly doubtful that the Defendant has been punished for the instant crime. Considering such circumstances, there is no need to punish the Defendant again.

However, the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing that the victims suffered property damage due to his own act. The crime is related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act in relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in which the judgment has become final, and the punishment should be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the above crimes are adjudicated simultaneously.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case shall be comprehensively considered.

2. Defendant C.

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years, but not more than two years and not more than six months;

(b) Determination of sentence 5);

The sum obtained by the Defendant by deceiving the victim0, etc. is a large amount of KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000 for sale price and construction deposit. The Defendant, as the actual operator of V, led the instant apartment sales agency. The nature of the crime is heavy. As a result, multiple victims have suffered serious property damage due to the Defendant’s crime, and the victims have not yet been recovered yet. There is no different circumstance in which the Defendant has sufficiently endeavored to recover damage. Nevertheless, there is a doubt that the Defendant continues to reverse statements and avoid responsibility that are difficult to understand from the investigative agency to the time in this court, and thus, is seriously against the instant crime. Considering these circumstances, there is a history of punishment several times for the Defendant. Considering these circumstances, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the victim X does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the defendant. Since the crime of the defendant is in the relationship of each crime of fraud and theless crimes of which judgment has become final and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity with the concurrent judgment of these crimes. Such circumstances are considered favorable to the defendant

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case shall be comprehensively considered.

3. Defendant D

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years, but not more than two years and not more than six months;

(b) Determination of sentence 6);

The amount obtained by the Defendant by deceiving the victim 0, etc. is a large amount of KRW 1.914 billion in total. The Defendant has deep-depth involvement in the crime, such as inducing the victims to enter into the construction and sale contract of the instant apartment. The crime is heavy. The Defendant has suffered serious property damage due to the Defendant’s crime, and the victims have not yet been recovered. There is no reason to change the circumstance where the Defendant has made a very endeavor to recover damage. There is no reason to believe that it is possible for the Defendant to sell the instant apartment in general, and therefore, there is doubt as to whether the instant crime is divided. Considering these circumstances, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, it seems that the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime is only a part of the total amount of damage. The Defendant’s crime is related to the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity and the same. Such circumstances shall be considered favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case shall be comprehensively considered.

4. Defendant E.

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Types] General Fraud (Determination of Types 10 million won or more, less than 50 million won, and the amount calculated by adding the amount of profit of each crime to the amount of profit according to the method of processing the same concurrent crimes)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to four years (Basic Area) imprisonment

(c) Determination of sentence;

The amount of money obtained by the Defendant by deceiving the victim F, etc. is a total of KRW 36 million. The victims have suffered serious property damage due to the Defendant’s crime, and the victims have not yet been recovered yet. There is no difference in circumstances in which the Defendant made a serious effort to recover the victims’ damage. Considering these circumstances, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the Defendant appears to have suffered damage equivalent to the construction deposit and the sale price after concluding the construction and the sale contract for the apartment of this case with V, even though he himself. The Defendant has no specific force of punishment, as well as punishment by a fine of the past two times. Such circumstances are considered favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case shall be comprehensively considered.

The acquittal portion

1. Determination as to Defendant A’s respective frauds against Victim FF, G, and H, and the frauds of KRW 65 million on August 3, 2009 against Victim F, G, and H (each frauds relating to construction contracts)

A. Summary of the facts charged

From April 13, 2009 to July 20, 2010, the Defendant, who was a joint representative director of Q Q Q, acquired Q, owned by the 998 household units of the instant apartment complex, concluded a construction contract for the instant apartment with V, knowing that it is practically impossible to repay the money borrowed from the S Bank, etc., or raise funds for the management of the company, with the knowledge that the general sale of the said apartment was impossible, in collusion with V, B, C, etc., concluded a construction contract for the instant apartment complex, and acquired money under the name of the construction deposit, and acquired money from V as part of the said money from V.

1) The Defendant in collusion with B, C, D, or E,

A) The victim F from June 24, 2009 to September 1, 2009 acquired a total of KRW 165 million from the victim F to the victim F for the interior construction deposit of the instant apartment from the victim F.

B) From August 3, 2009 to August 14, 2009, a sum of KRW 65 million was acquired from the victim 0 to August 14, 2009, under the name of the interior construction deposit and introduction expenses of the instant apartment.

2) The Defendant, in collusion with B, C, and D, acquired a total of KRW 110 million from the victim G, and H, to August 13, 2009, a sum of KRW 100,000,00 from July 31, 200 to August 13, 200.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant conspireds with the victims as if the general sale of the apartment of this case can be done immediately after concluding the construction contract with the V, B, C, etc. on the apartment of this case, and caused the victims to enter into the construction contract with the victims and received the money as the construction deposit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) The Defendant consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that there was no contract with V for the instant apartment project, and that V was entirely unaware of having received money as a security deposit for construction while concluding a subcontract with the victims on the interior and water construction of the instant apartment.

2) Around January 20, 2009, BM, on which the Defendant was the representative director, drafted a written contract for V and construction work regarding the apartment of this case. The said contract for construction work is subject to the interior work of the apartment of this case. However, the contract amount and the method of payment are as follows: “Ex Post Facto Consultation” (2016 high Gohap1270 (24-17).

CF stated in this Court that “CH and CG entered into a contract on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant. It was a kind of provisional contract, as it was prepared before the approval of sale in general was made. CH and CG did not separately verify whether the Defendant was entitled to act on behalf of the Defendant.” In this Court, CG did not have entered into a contract with the Defendant on January 20, 209, which was “the fact that the Defendant was not in the office of the Defendant at the time of January 20, 2009, and was not in a situation where the Defendant was not in the office of the Defendant, and that the Defendant was not consented or was not reported in advance with respect to the contract on January 20, 209. CF promised to lend KRW 100 million to Q in return for the above contract on January 20, 209.” On the other hand, CH made a statement that “the contract was entirely terminated by paying only a part of it and was actually terminated by paying it.” Meanwhile, CH did not pay money to CGF in its name.

In light of such statements of CF, CG, and CH, the construction contract between BM and CF on January 20, 2009 cannot be deemed as a fixed contract with full effect prepared by the Defendant’s will.

3) If V entered into a contract for Q or the Defendant with respect to the instant apartment building with Q or the Defendant in force, C submitted to the investigation agency a written contract for construction works made on May 7, 2009 in Q and V name [one ticket (24-2) No. 1270 evidence recording].

However, other seals that are similar to actual Q’s corporate seal impression, but different from actual Q’s seal impressions, are affixed to the above construction contract form. C from this court, as to the process of newly manufacturing and using a new seal imprint similar to Q’s actual corporate seal impression, the Defendant was allowed to use Q’s seal impression, and thus, the Defendant did not have properly explained that he created and used a new seal imprint for convenience. CG also stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that it was unaware of whether the construction contract was concluded as of May 27, 2009 (2016Da1270 (24-4)). Thus, it would be extremely doubtful whether the said construction contract form was made effective according to Q or the Defendant’s intent.

4) Meanwhile, around August 7, 2009, V affixed the Defendant’s name and Q’s name at the bottom of the construction contract entered into with the CP, which was signed by the victim H, and around August 7, 2009. However, even if Q’s name affixed on the above contract is similar to the actual Q’s corporate seal impression, it appears that the different form of the other seal affixed to it (2016Gohap12701 (24-1)).

5) The victim F, H, and G did not appear to have made a statement to the effect that they either directly seen or explained the Defendant during the process of concluding the construction contract for the instant apartment in the investigative agency and the instant investigation agency. In particular, the victim G made a statement to the effect that it was due to the fact that the Defendant was named as Q’s representative under the construction contract, which was shown by D on the grounds for filing a complaint between the police and the Defendant in this court.

6) As such, Defendant or Q did not have concluded a contract with the instant apartment in force with the Defendant and the instant apartment, and there was no circumstance to deem that the Defendant approved the victims to enter into a subcontract agreement with the instant apartment, or directly participated in the process. Meanwhile, inasmuch as the construction deposit received from the victims was the share of V, C stated that there was no reason to send it to Q or A, and the construction deposit actually paid by the victims was not delivered to Defendant or Q.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s fraud on April 19, 2010 against Defendant A’s P and each of the frauds against Defendant I and J (2017 Gohap14)

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, while acquiring Q with the instant apartment 98 household units, did not want to receive money from others as the selling price, in order to repay the money borrowed from the S Bank and T, etc. and to raise the company operation funds, etc., as if the above apartment were to be sold normally.

On April 19, 2010, the Defendant, at QN office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, purchased one apartment house from the victim P, I, and J, respectively, to the victim P, I, and one apartment house that can be converted into the general sale of 55 million won. As such, “The apartment complex that is the largest apartment complex in Yangju-si BG district is constructed and the subway is leading 7. The Defendant is responsible for the sale of Q apartment, which is a leased apartment, and will to make a transfer registration.” However, as the general sale is impossible, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to sell the above rental apartment in general.

Although there are these circumstances, on April 19, 2010, the defendant deceivings the victims, and caused the victims P to transfer a total of KRW 165 million, including KRW 55 million as the sale price for the apartment house DP, KRW 55 million as the sale price for the apartment house of this case, KRW 165 million as the sale price for the apartment house of this case, and KRW 55 million to CT, a real estate broker.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant had induced victims to enter into a sales contract on the apartment of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) From this court to this court on April 19, 2010, the victim P made a sales contract with the victim I and J for each apartment household of this case at Q office with the defendant, and stated that each apartment unit of this case was transferred to CT as the sales price. However, on December 7, 2009, the victim P deposited KRW 10 million out of the sales price to the account of CT and received a deposit certificate for KRW 55 million in Q under Q’s name (Evidence 14 evidence record No. 76 of this case). This is inconsistent with the victim P’s statement that the Defendant concluded a sales contract around April 19, 2010, and that it was difficult for the victim P to directly conclude the sales contract at the detention center or on October 11, 2012, as it is, to believe that the above sales contract was concluded.

2) The victim I and J stated in this Court that the victim P and CT introduced the apartment of this case, and that they directly concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, and that they remitted the sales price to CT.

However, as seen earlier, as long as the victim P does not seem to have directly met the Defendant at the time of entering into the sales contract, there is doubt as to whether the Defendant directly entered into the sales contract with the victim I and J even in the case of the victim I and J. In fact, the victim I and J stated in this court that the details of the sales contract were explained by CT and the victim P, and even at the time of entering into the contract, the Defendant did not specifically state how the Defendant participated in the conclusion of the sales contract of the instant apartment.

3) The sales price of the victim I and J deposited into the account of CT on May 5, 2010, and 20. In addition, as in the case of victim P, it is different from April 19, 2010, which is the date of conclusion of the contract for sale as stated in the accusation prepared by the victims and the charges.

4) From among the proceeds of the sale transferred by the victims under this law, CT has stated that the Defendant has remitted the total of KRW 45 million per household, and KRW 135 million per household, excluding the total of KRW 10 million per household, and that the proceeds of the sale were returned to the Defendant. However, upon the reversal of the statement again, CT has stated that the amount of KRW 120 million is KRW 30 million with the instructions of BW, and that the remaining amount of KRW 15 million has been delivered to B in cash, and it has not made a consistent statement on the proceeds of the sale delivered by the Defendant. Furthermore, there is no objective data to verify whether CT has delivered the Defendant accurately among the total of KRW 165 million transferred by the victims.

5) BW stated that the Defendant directly concluded a contract for sales in lots with the victim P in this court. However, the letters written in the victim P's contract for sales in lots are not the pen of the Defendant, but the letters written in the deposit slip in the victim P on January 14, 2010 are one’s own pen (Evidence No. 76 of the Evidence No. 2017Gohap14), but the Defendant did not explain the developments leading up to the preparation of the deposit slip around January 14, 2010 in which the Defendant was detained. In addition, BW only stated that the victim I and J contracts for sales in lots were concluded by CT, but did not state the exact date of the conclusion of the contract or the detailed reasons therefor.

6) BW and DR appears to have had considerable fees from those who enter into the sales contract for the apartment of this case under the pretext of selling it by proxy at the time. The victim P and CT also received fees in return for introducing victims I and J to enter into the sales contract for the apartment of this case.

7) It is doubtful whether the content of each contract for the sale of the apartment of this case submitted by the victims is incomplete, such as not stating the sale price, etc. (2017Dahap14, evidence No. 17, evidence No. 17).

8) If facts and circumstances are the same, it is difficult to believe that the statement on the process of concluding the above sales contract of BW and CT as it is, and if the victim P was detained at the time of paying the sales price of the apartment of this case as seen earlier, it is doubtful whether the victims signed the sales contract of the apartment of this case and paid the sales price of the apartment of this case was caused by the Defendant’s deception, and there is no circumstance suggesting that the Defendant instructed or approved the Defendant to conclude the sales contract with CT, BW, DR, etc. on the record.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 52

3. Determination as to Defendant A’s fraud of KRW 30,100,000 against Defendant A’s Victim P around October 8, 2012

(2017 Gohap14)

A. Summary of the facts charged

On October 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the Gangnam-gu Office of the Construction Site of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Apartment Complex (Seoul) on October 2012, the victim P bears the expenses for installing and maintaining containers at the construction site of BH; and (b) he/she has to repay the expenses to the victim P. The amount of KRW 30,000,000 to KRW 30,000; (c) is a public sale in Q; (d) can be awarded a successful bid of KRW 10 billion or less; and (e) would have been resolved immediately because AD bank would have made a loan from AD bank.” (e.g., remittance of KRW 1,30,000 to DS account around October 8, 2012; and (e) had the victim P wired the total amount of KRW 30,100,000 for 111 times from

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., (a) the victim P lent KRW 30,100,000 to the victim's lending of money; (b) the victim P demanded the defendant to pay the debt in lieu of the victim's debt; and (c) the defendant stated that he/she would consent to do so; and (b) the defendant was liable to pay the victim's debt in relation to the defendant's business expenses; (d) the victim was promised to pay the victim's debt in lieu of the victim's business expenses; and (e) there was no other circumstance that the defendant was involved in the process of lending the victim's money from the beginning, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant gave the victim a total of KRW 30,100,000 by deceiving the victim on October 8, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article

4. Determination as to Defendant A’s fraud with K and L (2017 Height 15)

A. Summary of the facts charged

On May 18, 2009, the defendant, at the office of the sales agent located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DN, sold the apartment of this case, which is located in the victim K and L through DDR, a sales agent, and is now rented out to the victim K and L, and it will be the apartment complex that is the largest apartment complex in the BG district, and will be constructed in the 7th electric railway. On October 2009, if the sales contract is made and only 40 million won is paid, the defendant would sell the above apartment bonds and make the registration of ownership transfer. However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to sell the above apartment in general by October 2009.

On May 19, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims as above, obtained 40 million won from the victim K to Q AD bank account in Q Q bank account in the above office on May 19, 2009, and acquired 80 million won from L to the same account at the same place as the same day from the victim L for the sale price for the above apartment 2 bonds.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the defendant was given money in the name of the purchase price to the victims after participating in the process of concluding the contract for the apartment of this case or by deceiving the victims to conclude the contract for the sale of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) From the police and this court around May 19, 2009, K entered into a sales contract for the apartment of this case with DDR, a sales agent for the apartment of this case, through BW, and stated that BW did not sell the apartment of this case thereafter, and that BW was first seen the Defendant at around November 2009. The written complaint submitted by K to the police was also entered into a sales contract at DDR office, and the subsequent written introduction of BW that did not implement the sales contract.

(2017Gohap15 Evidence No. 7 pages)

2) There is no record to confirm which authority was delegated by the Defendant with respect to the sale of the instant apartment by the victims, the other party to the contract for the sale of the instant apartment.

3) Around November 2009, the Defendant explained that the contract for the sale in lots prepared with DDR was null and void for the first time with the victim K, and prepared a new contract for the sale in lots instead of returning the price deposited by Q to Q (each legal statement of the witness BW and K). In other words, the Defendant appears to have expressed that the effect of the contract for the sale in lots concluded with the victim K on November 2009 through DDR cannot be recognized.

4) After June 18, 2010, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation to the victim K that “the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant would pay the principal and interest to pay the amount to be returned in connection with the instant apartment sale case by June 18, 2010.” The said written confirmation is not a content that acknowledges the Defendant’s responsibility to implement the sales contract, but a confirmation that the Defendant would pay the amount to be paid for the consideration (return). Thus, it is insufficient to use it as evidence to support that the Defendant directly concluded the said sales contract with the victims at the time of May 18, 2009 or participated in the DR’s direction or approval of the conclusion of the contract (2017 Gohap15 Evidence No. 20).

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article

5. Determination as to Defendant A’s fraud against Defendant A’s Victim M and N (2017 Height 910)

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant was a joint representative director of Q Q who owns the instant apartment 98 households from April 13, 2009 to July 20, 2010. Since it was unclear whether the instant apartment can be sold in general, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to sell the instant apartment in general.

1) Nevertheless, around May 22, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, in Q sales office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant would be responsible for the transfer of ownership of the designated Dongs and units if the apartment is clearly designated and then the general sale is held responsible for the transfer of ownership of the designated Dongs and units if the apartment was sold in Q for five years after the lease to the victim M.

Around May 22, 2009, the Defendant had the victim conclude a sales contract for the two apartment units of this case under the name of the victim's wife, and then transferred KRW 40 million from the victim to Q's account as down payment. On June 4, 2009, the Defendant had the victim conclude a sales contract for the one apartment units of this case under the victim's wife's name, and received KRW 20 million from the victim to Q's account as down payment and received KRW 60 million in total.

2) On June 12, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim N in the above Q sales office in the same manner as the above paragraph 1. The Defendant had the victim conclude a sales contract for the three households of the instant apartment in the name of the victim around June 12, 2009, and received KRW 90 million from the victim as the down payment as the down payment.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficient to prove that the defendant involved in the process of concluding the instant apartment sales contract or caused the victims to conclude the said sales contract by deceiving the victims, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) The Defendant consistently stated from the investigative agency to this court that there was no direct contact with the victim M and N, or that there was no instruction or approval to conclude a sales contract with another person to conclude a sales contract with the victims.

2) From this court around May 2009, the victim M entered into a sales contract for two households upon introduction of the instant apartment through DV. At the time, whether a person who was introduced as the representative director of Q Q was the defendant or not, and most of the explanation of the contract was DV. In addition, the victim M stated that DV recommended the conclusion of the sales contract for one household around June 4, 2009 in addition, as for the reasons why the sales contract for one household was additionally entered into, it was the fact that DV added one more of the sales contract for the instant apartment, thereby creating an additional contract for one household at the multilateral bank located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

3) From this court around June 2009, the victim N entered into a contract for the instant apartment bonds 3 on its behalf. The victim N did not have visited Q Q’s office and the defendant stated that it was first viewed in the court.

4) The statement of the victims alone is not clear whether the defendant was involved in the process of concluding the sales contract with the victims, and it is difficult to confirm whether the defendant approved or instructed the DV to execute the sales contract of the apartment of this case on behalf of the victims.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article

6. Determination as to the facts charged by Defendant B (2016Gohap1270)

A. Summary of the facts charged

From February 25, 2009 to December 4, 2009, the Defendant: (a) was holding office as the representative director from February 25, 2009 to December 4, 2009; and (b) did not proceed with the general sale procedure for the instant apartment in Q in the name of Q, and (c) had concluded a sales agency contract for the instant apartment in Q in the name of Q and the construction contract for the instant apartment in the name of Q, and had been issued money under the name of the sales price or the construction deposit for the apartment in Q or Q, and used the remainder to arbitrarily use it with C, D, and CG.

1) The Defendant in collusion with A, C, D, or E,

A) The sum of KRW 165 million in the name of the victim F from June 24, 2009 to September 1, 2009, by deceiving the victim F from September 1, 2009 as the interior construction deposit;

B) The sum of KRW 65 million from August 3, 2009 to August 14, 2009, by deceiving the victim KRW 65 million in the name of the deposit and introduction expenses for interior works from the victim0 to August 14, 2009;

C) From August 21, 2009 to September 22, 2009, the victim X obtained a total of KRW 76 million from the victim X as the sale price.

2) The Defendant conspired with A, C, or D;

A) The sum of KRW 110 million from July 31, 2009 to August 13, 2009, as the deposit money for the interior works of the victim G and H from the victim G and H from August 13, 2009; and

B) The sum of KRW 170,000,000 from August 20, 2009 to September 21, 2009, acquired from the victim 0 to September 21, 2009 as the sale price;

C) The victim K acquired a total of KRW 38 million from August 21, 2009 to August 25, 2009 as the sale price;

D) by deceiving the victim AM as a sale price from August 20, 2009 to August 25, 2009, a sum of KRW 38 million;

E)encilation of total of KRW 667 million from October 21, 2009 to November 30, 2009 as a sale price by a victim/N from November 30, 2009;

F) From October 24, 2009 to December 1, 2009, the victim acquired a total of KRW 545 million from the victim AR as a sale price.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant, in collusion with A, C, D, etc., was involved in the act of deceiving the victims as if the general sale of the apartment of this case could soon occur, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) The Defendant consistently and consistently from the investigative agency to this court, stated to the effect that “B only entrusts the representative director in the form of V with the request of CF and C, and did not participate in the relevant business of the apartment of this case. The practice of the instant apartment related business was dealt with by C. All of the business of the instant apartment of this case.”

2) Examining the statements made by the victims’ investigative agency and this court, there is doubt as to whether the Defendant, in entering into a construction contract and sales contract with the victims, was an accomplice who can be evaluated as an accomplice in C, etc.

1) The victim F stated in this Court that “The name of the Defendant was heard, but there was no actually no statement in fact, and there was no fact that the Defendant directly heard matters related to the contract before and after the interior construction contract.”

② In this Court, the victim G also stated that “the Defendant filed a complaint because he is the representative of V, and there was no talk with the Defendant prior to the conclusion of the contract. The Defendant did not participate in the preparation of the contract, and divided the Defendant’s detailed talks with the Defendant after the issue of non-performance of the contract occurred. The construction of the instant apartment was considered to have been promoted both D and C.”

③ In this court, the victim DNA stated in this court that “the defendant was only the representative without almost anything but only the representative. There was no explanation about the article, and only the match business operator was the same atmosphere as the defendant.” The police stated that “the defendant was seated at the office and did not specially leave the office. However, because he was the representative of V, he would have conspired with C, D, because he was the representative of the office.” (The number of pages 6 (24-23) of evidence record No. 2016 high-1270 (24-23)).”

3) In this court, C stated that the Defendant was well aware of the business related to the apartment of this case, and that he was only aware of the extent of managing the account as the type CF did, and that the Defendant was only aware of the fact that the Defendant was the representative director of V or the interview with each other in this court. As such, Co-defendants stated that the Defendant was working as the representative director of V under the name upon request of CF, and that the Defendant did not play a specific role in the construction contract and the sales contract related to the apartment of this case.

4) Since the Defendant was the same person as the operator of V’s CF and the representative director of V on the corporate register, the Defendant is suspected to have managed the construction deposit and the sales price of the victims deposited into the V’s account, or to have accrued any profit from the said money, but there is no other evidence to prove such circumstance in the record.

C. Conclusion

Thus, since all the facts charged against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment shall be published in accordance with Article 52 (2)

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

2) Although the facts charged are written as "the same day ( July 8, 2010)", the date on which KRW 28.2 million has been issued to the defendant on the record is July 9, 2010, and such correction is made as such (Article 26, 81, 218 of the Evidence Record).

3) The crimes Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7-A of the holding are concurrent crimes as provided by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentencing criteria are not applicable. Thus, the crimes are examined only with respect to the crimes No. 7-b. e. and No. 8 of the holding.

4) The sentencing criteria set forth that when a person who forged a private document uses the forged document, the crime of uttering shall not be treated as a majority of the crimes, and shall be treated as sentencing factors only.

5) Since Defendant C’s instant crime constitutes concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

6) The crime of this case by Defendant D constitutes concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.